Wow, ‘Councils’ diminished respect for professional advice.’

They said what others can’t – bravo.

Todarian may have been principled and passionate but not enough so to stand up to his political bosses and tell them that in his professional opinion they were wrong. If it was Council or the Manager who forced him to follow every trendy planning fashion and to do the things that deprived him of both community and developer support then he should have quit.

Someone has yet to explain to me how it is that we are still mired in old paradigm planning in our city.

Is that our doing, our elected civic leaders, or our professional staff?

A nice slap across Vision’s face.

Well said Glissy! A couple of observations:

1) Your:

“The fact that a DP Application may pass with a vote of 2 to 1 is stupid, and totally wrong on so many levels.”

is valid in the present politicization of City Hall. When the system was set up it was intended to be the final review by senior staff of a conditional use project that had gone through the zoning by-law, design guidelines, and design, heritage, etc. panels hoops. The bear’s claws in the honey now is we have a broken down system that has been politicized.

2) And your:

” If the DoP has to choose, then we’ve already lost the game. No matter what choice the DoP makes, there is an urban design plan that should have been in place—providing that guidance—that is missing.”

reinforces 1) as well focuses attention on another big bear claw in the honey: ‘spot rezonings’. The DoP now has the authority to over-ride Neighbourhood Plans. Council gave him that authority, but if Mr. Toderian really understood and respected neighbourhoods and a valid planning process truly involving them, why did he accept, and in fact, exploit that authority?

I’m afraid I have not witnessed Mr. Toderian’s “strong commitment to neighbourhood consultation”. If he had that, why did he phone a community leader long distance and promise Planning will start to listen to the community and provide real alternative solutions, and then nothing changes? Perhaps he was being pressured politically. He’s not the 1st DoP to be in that position. And, at least one of his predecessors stood up to Council several times.

Trisha, Ronda and Rob – very well said. It’s refreshing to hear from those in the know who can speak out on behalf of Brent. Although I never worked with or for him, you’ve expressed opinions that I understand are widely shared by current staff who cannot speak out for themselves.

You’ve also noted the unprecedented challenges that Brent faced as a single director, and never faced by any of his predecessors. Which brings me back to something I mused about in an earlier posting about the new DoP – perhaps it is time to return to a co- director model.

I’d love to hear your thoughts about this idea.

Thought of The Day

“Strange how sometimes, my words get here, before I’m here! Better legs… I assume.”

Mira #8

Thanks for sharing, Mira. Glad you liked my words. Happy to oblige!

Bill McCreery #9

Thanks, Bill.
BTW, this excerpt:
” If the DoP has to choose, then we’ve already lost the game. No matter what choice the DoP makes, there is an urban design plan that should have been in place—providing that guidance—that is missing.”
is by Lewis N. Villegas!

Frank Ducote #11

Funny to say that as this was exactly my thought too!
Here from my:
http://twitter.com/#!/glissandoremmy

“#BrentToderian Here’s A Thought: Maybe Z City Should Go Back To Two DOfP Paid $100,000 Each! If One Is Fired One Is Left 2 Suffer Scared Shit But In A Humane Way!”
1 Feb

MB #12,

Just to take a bit of your polished luster off your face… would it come as a surprise to you, that I do know in fact, exactly what a D of P is supposed to do in his/ her job?
One day, you’ll understand.
As for me applying for the job, again, funny you suggested that, as not long ago, I had a short conversation on this very subject 🙂 … here:

“Sean Antrim, asked me on Twitter earlier today… shall we apply for the job?
My answer?
@seanantrim “In Order 2 Apply 4 Z Job, We’d Have 2 Be Completely Unqualified; Be Part Of Z Inner Hollyhock Cult; Have No Balls; Deaf/Blind/Mute… And I’m Failing 1, 2, 3, 4!””

So, there, you see?
There are some prerequisites I cannot possible acquire, in such a short time , plus as you already know by now…

We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

@ Glissss: “would it come as a surprise to you, that I do know in fact, exactly what a D of P is supposed to do in his/ her job?”

Please take my suggestion to apply for the job as a polished, lustrous compliment. It’s just that I’ve been in municipal government for 19 years and we really — I mean seriously, desperately — need someone who can warm up the tinder dry language in planning reports to council before it crumbles and mummifies.

And deliver critiques to councillor’s beaming (or alternately glaring) faces at meetings and get the audience in the balcony chuckling at the same time.

I can’t think of another more qualified candidate, at least for the entertainment value. And you’d be able to negotiate a year’s salary as severence too.

Just think.

“ . . . need someone who can warm up the tinder dry language in planning reports to council before it crumbles and mummifies.”

No, MB, I couldn’t do the job but I’d like to see some traction . . .

http://www.theyorkshirelad.ca/1yorkshirelad/vancouver.re-boot/Vancouver.re-boot.html

. . .

It is so principled of the 3 former assistant directors to state simply and directly what they experienced. So few people have principles, courage and the ability to communicate so clearly. Things are bad at the hall now. Even worse than before this last election. The City Manager is so abusive to managers and directors that creativity, risk taking, and “thinking outside the box” are all but gone. It will take years to rebuild and repair the former culture of creativity, service, and pride in accomplishment.

Bill although you were in contact with many communities during your run for Council, I suspect that I may be the community leader that you are referring to in your post #9. You are correct that Brent called me long distance while on a business trip. But only Brent and I were on that call, and I think it important to offer clarification. First the fact that he called me, unprompted while running from one meeting to the next while on the other side of Canada, in my mind definitely speaks to a level of committment to connect with communities. Secondly, at the time of that call, our group had not yet requested options or alternatives, we were still pushing for the Rezoning of Gateway to go on hold so that some dedicated planning could take place for Marine & Cambie. The process was quite far along, and we were trying to back up the train. I liased directly with Brent, while at the same time stayed in regular contact via e-mails and meetings with Council to encourage a pause for planning for Marine & Cambie. We did succeed in getting planning – and it was with the cooperation and support of Brent (and of course the approval of Council). When we started to request options, we knew that given how far the process was, that options were a long shot, but we tried, and I will say that I still believe that Council should have supported the investigation of alternatives for Marine & Cambie. To Brent’s credit, he stated publicly when the Cambie Corridor Plan went before Council in May, that the alternatives generated by our group (with the invaluable assistance of 4 seasoned professionals in the planning industry) had merit. He also told Council before a large gallery in the Council Chamber that if they wanted alternatives investigated that they needed to direct him and his staff to do that work. They did not. As a newbie to the planning world, it took me a while to figure out (which seems so obvious now) that the planning staff, including the DoP can not just arbitrarily decide to direct resources and undertake investigations without direction from Council. Council has the power, and holds all the cards.

It bothers me greatly when I hear people say that “nothing changed”, or in another case somebody stated that we “lost the battle” at Marine & Cambie. To say that is an insult to the incredible hard work and countless hours that all of the MARA folk put in, along with our outside supporters and advisors. Much changed due to the planning pause – but not at the big visible “it’s all or nothing level” that community groups seem to be going for. We could see all across the city that high density, tall towers were getting support from Council and it would have been silly for us to focus our efforts solely on height and density when there were other positive changes that we felt we could achieve:

Marine & Cambie was just Marine & Cambie. No identity, no theme, no nothing. Our group put together a proposal, a name, an identity and a theme – “Marine Landing”. The City adopted the name, and “Marine Landing” is now the official name of that precinct in the Cambie Corridor Plan. Our document also introduced a concept for the area, a concept that the developers of the three key sites now use. That was an ahievement and a change.

We continually forced the discussion about improvements to the public realm, and brought focus to the ground plane. Many changes were made to the pedestrian mews at PCI’s Marine Gateway as a result. And Intracorp is now designing their ground plane to compliment the ideas that came from the community. That was an achievement and a change.

We pushed PCI to pull the north side of one of their residential buildings back from the Canada Line platform to retain the north view of the mountains. They did. That was an achievement and a change.

We had smaller but important things like crosswalks repainted at Marine & Cambie when they had clearly been forgotten about after the Canada Line had been open for a year and the crosswalks had been realigned but not repainted. We worked with Engineering and had the crosswalk signalization changed so that pedestrians no longer had to push the button to cross to/from the Canada Line during rush hour. That was a change.

All of these changes took literally hours to bring to life. Hours from dedicated community folk.

True – we didn’t get all of the changes we put forward. But did we really expect to get everything?

I can only speak from my own experience: somethings you can change, others you can’t – and if you spend all of your time trying to change the unchangeable – you won’t accomplish a thing.

We worked closely with Brent Toderian and his Planning staff and they with us. We worked closely with PCI and they with us. Many things changed as a result of planning at Marine & Cambie and as a community leader who recieved diverse input from many many residents in the neighbourhood, it wasn’t up to us to say whether enough changed or not. It wasn’t our call.

But things changed.

@brilliant – if you are interested, please e-mail me at and I will send you our Marine Landing document.

Jo-Anne 21, I for one really appreciate your comments here. Your direct experience with Mr. Toderian makes me believe that citizens can and do have the ability to affect change.

Us critics will never be completely happy, but we must have some respect for those who have been in the trenches.

@ Bill … ” ‘I’ve been in municipal government for 19 years.’ Wow, what a surprising revelation!”

How touching.

My public sector work follows seven years in the private sector. I have seen both sides of the counter, and one day I’ll write a book.

What’s your story? Is it surprising?

Jo-Anne, I’m sorry I don’t see things quite the same way you do in this matter. I’ll elaborate, but 1st let me say that if you, and your community truly believe you were listened to and you got what you wanted and/or was necessary to create a viable, healthy neighbourhood, then I defer to you.

Having said that, I’d like to comment on a number of your statements.

Your suggestion that Brent had a “… level of committment to connect with communities” because he called you from Eastern Canada. Optimistically perhaps yes, but perhaps it was his way of dealing with damage control. As I recall at the time the Marine Gateway proposal was quite front and centre.

Agreed, you were pushing for “dedicated planning… for Marine & Cambie” at that time. I also recall discussing with you that the planning department should be presenting real, valid options to the community so, among other things, you could have a meaningful influence in the planning process. Given that one of the principle concerns of the Marpole community was the proposed height, densities, uses and the resulting traffic, generating, options would normally be an important part of such a “dedicated planning” process. My understanding at the time was that what was being discussed with the Planning Department was a 6 month mini-neighbourhood planning process. I understood, perhaps incorrectly, from talking with you that was at least part of what you were discussing in the phone call. The bottom line is that you did not get any meaningful changes in the height, densities, uses and the resulting traffic problems of these spot rezoning proposals.

At about this time I withdrew my, up until that point, positive collaboration with your group because I think we both realized my presence was not helpful because I was running for Council and you were then getting technical assistance from “seasoned professionals”.

You said you did “succeed in getting planning–“. At that point I was watching this process reasonably closely and what I saw was not a planning process that meaningfully engaged your community, but a couple of more public meetings that identified the detailed problems and possible solutions for things like crosswalks, etc, that you’ve referred to later.

Yes Brent did say to Council “… if they wanted alternatives investigated that they needed to direct him and his staff to do that work”. In my experience in a situation like that the Planner would have worked out a motion with 2 Councillors before the meeting so Council could give proper consideration of his request. If he did try to do and was not successful, that is to his credit. As I recall that request took some time to come before Council.

You correctly point out that “Council has the power, and holds all the cards”. However, one of my frustrations, and also shared by a number of others, is that the DoP could have and should have been more proactive in attempting to make the necessary changes in the planning processes themselves which were resulting in situations such as this one. He did not, in fact, he seemed quite comfortable in being able to ignore and over-ride community plans and zoning by-law requirements. I do not see that as a “… level of committment to connect with communities”.

I gather from your discussion of what you did achieve Jo-Anne, that, and although you’d like to have achieved more, that you are OK with the outcome in and what it was. I take a different perspective. I will not accept a planning process in Marpole and across the City that ignores neighbourhood concerns, that obliterate community plans, makes a mockery of zoning by-laws and gets citizens to focus on the details while the important issues are not addressed. You have said: “somethings you can change, others you can’t – and if you spend all of your time trying to change the unchangeable – you won’t accomplish a thing”. I agree, and did at the time, but IMO more could have and should have been accomplished to achieve at least a somewhat more compatible fit into your neighbourhood.

@ Insider 24.

I believe I have clarified what I had previously said in my reply above to Jo-Anne. I do not agree that what I’ve said is “misinformation” or “mischaracterization”. You and others may or may not see eye to eye on my position, and I’d be happy to continue our discussion and exchange of ideas, one on one if you’d like. IMO the planning process is broken in this city and I and others are trying to contribute to improving it.

I must take issue with your suggestion that I misinform and mischaracterize “… constantly about many staff”. Really? I can think of 3 or maybe 4 instances where I have been very frustrated with what I perceived, perhaps incorrectly, as stalling or stonewalling by staff over the past couple of years and I have expressed that frustration.

At Council I have been critical of the DoP and one or two Engineering staff. However, what I’ve said cannot be taken as “misinformation” or “mischaracterization”. I was indeed frustrated because they claimed to wanted to listen to citizens, but I didn’t see them doing so based on any meaningful change in outcomes. And, directly there is also the broken planning processes that comes into this.

The bike lane consultation and approval process could have been handled in a more open and transparent way. As has been said, it was rammed through Council after midnight and work started the next morning. Can you blame myself and many others if we have become cynical about the politicization of City staff?

On a couple of occasions at Council I asked questions of the DoP and called him when he, IMO, in fact misrepresented what he had said to the Norquay community to Council. Unfortunately the format for discussion at Council does not allow for dialogue, and I was not able to respond to what was “misinformation” in the DoP’s reply to my concerns.

I have made critical comments about what staff are or are not doing at some open houses. Given the broken planning process, the lack of a perceived willingness to do anything about it, the lack of meaningful dialogue and change in outcome, and the apparent ‘wait them out’ in the spot rezonings across the City, although I’d rather not criticize staff, but some staff by their actions or inactions appeared to be not willing to take a professional stand with Council. IMO, certainly senior staff do have that obligation (there certainly is precedent for this). If it was happening I, nor anyone I know was aware of such goings on (some of us can keep a confidence, and if this was happening, it’d have been very helpful to know of it).

I have had individual discussions with at least 3 staff about the specifics of particular concerns I’ve had. I was subsequently disappointed as I did not see any changes.

The planning process in Vancouver belongs to all. A ‘leave it to the planners to set the planning process and do the planning’ mentality is not acceptable. The planning process must be open, transparent, up front and participatory. Vancouverites are intelligent people who need a meaningful role in shaping their city.

The Planning Commission seems to share my concern about the well being of the planning processes at this time. Here is the final paragraph from the “VCPC Sustainable City of Sustainable Neighbourhoods RTS9252” report, page 26:

“In the course of the project we heard many inspirational ideas from citizen groups, but our overwhelming impression is that a recommendation that the City spearhead any of these
actions would be counter to their intention. A process initiated and managed by the City is not what is wanted or needed. There have been many of these and, almost without
exception, they have not achieved the desired results identified by our participants. There may, indeed, be an argument for stepping back from the current intensive, exhaustive and
highly institutionalized engagement processes currently undertaken by the City. Instead, it might be more appropriate for the City to take a supporting role in neighbourhood-initiated efforts to define themselves and shape their own unique identity.”

I hope I and other citizens can continue to work with City staff in an open, honest way in ‘shaping our own identies’. I look forward to doing so with you.

@Bill, unfortunately whether you identified where the information came from or not, the principle of the matter is, that information that you were privy to – (and trusted with), which was was not intended to be used publicly, was.

There were no giant secrets in that phone call. We wanted planning and Brent called to update me on that status of bringing about a pause in the Rezoning. It was in the conversation around my kitchen table after that phone call that “we” began to discuss the need for alternatives. MARA hadn’t brought that forward yet.

I think we’ve beat this horse to death now.

Chris, you are slipping. It took almost 48 hours for you to make this thread about bike lanes.

Interesting comments from CBC asking why and how the decision on Brent happened, and that he was disappointed word leaked out before he could tell his staff himself. I wonder why he couldn’t tell them earlier? Something legal?

http://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/cbcs-rick-cluff-interviews-fired-director-of-planning-brent-toderian-feb-9-archive-link-here/

Its now common knowledge around staff, planners were hearing the news from developers and architects over the weekend, who apparently heard from a certain councillor who had called developer donors first. Holy cow.

http://www.vancourier.com/Letters+week/6131917/story.html

Another former PD staffer having something to say, and fixing a misquote?